6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

"3I/Atlas moved predominantly in a vertical trajectory through the solar system, much like ‘Oumuamua did when the anomaly was first detected — and not horizontally, as Borisov did. I expect that the laws of nature (which I believe are responsible for the ‘Oumuamua anomaly) are consistent, and therefore 3I/Atlas should exhibit similar behavior.

I don’t see anyone arguing against the laws of nature. It’s just that you haven’t articulated the details of the application of these laws

6 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I have repeatedly stated that the 10% figure is derived from simple ratio calculations, where perihelion distance and the angles of entry and exit are the determining factors."

Not here you haven’t (what you’ve stated elsewhere doesn’t apply). You mentioned “proportional reasoning” once, but, again, you haven’t articulated any details.

8 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t see anyone arguing against the laws of nature. It’s just that you haven’t articulated the details of the application of these laws

Not here you haven’t (what you’ve stated elsewhere doesn’t apply). You mentioned “proportional reasoning” once, but, again, you haven’t articulated any details.

Not in agreement. The only factors we can currently consider are:

• Distance to the Sun

• Angle of approach and departure

• Horizontal/Vertical direction

• Specific trajectory (and whether it matters)

As mentioned, in such contexts we are often dealing with an anomaly of unknown origin.
It makes no sense to consider outgassing, as nothing has been observed—just as no aliens have been observed.

So we are left only with the laws of nature, regardless of whether the one responsible for acceleration or deceleration anomalies is known or not.

The interesting question is whether we are seeing more or less the same “pattern” as with the Oumuamua anomaly.
We only have a few parameters to work with, and that’s exactly what I’m doing—leading to the conclusion that, at best, we shouldn’t expect more than a relative 10% anomaly.

Edited October 1Oct 1 by Bjarne-7

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Not in agreement.

It’s not clear what you’re not in agreement with

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

The only factors we can currently consider are:

• Distance to the Sun

• Angle of approach and departure

• Horizontal/Vertical direction

• Specific trajectory (and whether it matters)

As mentioned, in such contexts we are often dealing with an anomaly of unknown origin.

I think there could be other factors. Albedo would be one.

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

It makes no sense to consider outgassing, as nothing has been observed—just as no aliens have been observed.

No sense? Solids outgas. The question isn’t whether it’s happening, the question is how much?

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

So we are left only with the laws of nature, regardless of whether the one responsible for acceleration or deceleration anomalies is known or not.

Outgassing would follow the laws of nature.

The issue I brought up is that you haven’t shared the details of the laws of nature you’re applying

3 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

The interesting question is whether we are seeing more or less the same “pattern” as with the Oumuamua anomaly.
We only have a few parameters to work with, and that’s exactly what I’m doing—leading to the conclusion that, at best, we shouldn’t expect more than a relative 10% anomaly.

Without details, there’s no way for any of us to know how you arrived at this conclusion. The point of a discussion board is to share these details.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not clear what you’re not in agreement with

Common features estimate - just for fun. Nothing to worry about. No Aliens , no cryptic messages, just waste of time. Dont worry, the world will go on.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I think there could be other factors. Albedo would be one.

In my view: last desperate ad hoc - without consensus

4 hours ago, swansont said:

No sense? Solids outgas. The question isn’t whether it’s happening, the question is how much?

It has been ruled out for Omuamua, and I dont belive 3i/atlas should be an exception

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Outgassing would follow the laws of nature.

Only if such was observed.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

The issue I brought up is that you haven’t shared the details of the laws of nature you’re applying

All you can do is to compare common features, - and wait , nothinh else.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Without details, there’s no way for any of us to know how you arrived at this conclusion. The point of a discussion board is to share these details.

Rough Estimate: Perihelion Distance alone reduces the effect to about 25% Angle alone reduces the effect to about 40% Combined, they bring it down to roughly 10% General calculation, don't want to spend more time on it.

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Common features estimate - just for fun. Nothing to worry about. No Aliens , no cryptic messages, just waste of time. Dont worry, the world will go on.

Your responses almost count as cryptic messages. It’s like overhearing one half of a phone conversation

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

In my view: last desperate ad hoc - without consensus

Desperate? albedo would be important for any model that wants to estimate heating or radiation pressure.

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

It has been ruled out for Omuamua, and I dont belive 3i/atlas should be an exception

Ruled out? Who did that? Nothing was visible, but not all gases are visible.

But this thread is about Atlas, which is definitely outgassing - there’s a tail.

www.noirlab.edu

Gemini South Captures Growing Tail of Interstellar Comet...

Astronomers and students working together through a unique educational initiative have obtained a striking new image of the growing tail of interstellar Comet 3I/ATLAS. The observations reveal a pr...

.

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

All you can do is to compare common features, - and wait , nothinh else.

Of which, I will point out AGAIN, you have not shared the details.

2 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Rough Estimate: Perihelion Distance alone reduces the effect to about 25% Angle alone reduces the effect to about 40% Combined, they bring it down to roughly 10% General calculation, don't want to spend more time on it.

I can’t help but notice that these are not calculations.

They shouldn’t be that involved. (I’ve noted a strong correlation between people who resist sharing such work with people who “don’t do math”). People who are to be taken seriously are eager to share and discuss, rather than just lecture. The latter, BTW, is contrary to the rules. If that’s what you want, go start a blog. This is a discussion forum.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s like overhearing one half of a phone conversation

I agree, this is the impression I get.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Desperate? albedo would be important for any model that wants to estimate heating or radiation pressure.

I don't know if you've noticed that what we're discussing about 3i/Atlas is that we're actually seeing an anomaly that looks like the Omuamua anomaly. - And the answer is that there's nothing to show that this anomaly has been resolved.

Rejected explanations for ʻOumuamua’s anomaly

1. Classical outgassing (water/ice gases) → Rejected: no coma or gas was observed.

2. Solar radiation pressure → Rejected: would require an unrealistically thin/light natural object.

3. Hydrogen outgassing → Rejected: demands large amounts of trapped H₂, difficult to preserve over billions of years.

4. Artificial lightsail / technosignature → Rejected: no evidence of artificial origin, too speculative.

5. Measurement error / astrometry → Rejected: detailed analyses show the anomaly is real, not an artifact.

6. High albedo (reflectivity) → Rejected: observations show a dark surface (low albedo ~0.1), so reflected sunlight cannot account for the acceleration.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

But this thread is about Atlas, which is definitely outgassing - there’s a tail.

Very little — for 3I/ATLAS the effect of outgassing appears to be extremely small, on the order of 10e-9m/s^2.... (i.e. less than 0.05% of ʻOumuamua’s anomaly.).

5 hours ago, swansont said:

I can’t help but notice that these are not calculations.

They shouldn’t be that involved. (I’ve noted a strong correlation between people who resist sharing such work with people who “don’t do math”). People who are to be taken seriously are eager to share and discuss, rather than just lecture. The latter, BTW, is contrary to the rules. If that’s what you want, go start a blog. This is a discussion forum.

There is no need to show calculations that can essentially be downloaded as ready-made results from the internet and then are pure head-hunting.

Because you are my best friend, I have downloaded the basic data for you.

Micheli et al. (2018, Nature) showed that ʻOumuamua’s non-gravitational acceleration could be well described by a law that decreased approximately as 1/r² with distance from the Sun.

Therefore, two comparison factors come into play:

1) Perihelion distance

• ʻOumuamua perihelion distance q≈0.2559q \approx 0.2559q≈0.2559 AU (about 38.3 million km)

• 3I/ATLAS perihelion distance q≈1.356q \approx 1.356q≈1.356 AU (October 29, 2025)

This means that 3I/ATLAS passes about 5 times farther from the Sun at perihelion than ʻOumuamua did.
Thus, one can conclude / estimate / calculate proportionally that the anomaly comparison basis for 3I/ATLAS is only about 20% relative to ʻOumuamua (simple proportional reasoning).

2) Radial / Outbound angle

At 2 AU (outgoing):

• ʻOumuamua: ~16° from radial

• 3I/ATLAS: ~45° from radial

At 4 AU (outgoing):

• ʻOumuamua: ~9.5° from radial

• 3I/ATLAS: ~22° from radial

Clearly, the radial outbound angle must be included in the comparison.
And again, with proportional (back-of-the-envelope) reasoning, you can see that a possible similar anomaly for 3I/ATLAS should be reduced from the 20% baseline by an additional factor of about 2–3.

In other words: Then you can reduce the already found 20% we found before, then you end up with a (possible) anomaly that is 2 to 3 times lower, which means between 7 and 10%.

If we simply take ʻOumuamua’s 1/r² scaling and apply only the difference in outbound angle, a corresponding possible anomaly for 3I/ATLAS would fall in the range of 0.7–1.0 × 10⁻⁶ m/s² between 1.5 and 2.5 AU — lower than ʻOumuamua’s but not vanishing.

Oumuamua’s anomalous acceleration

(assuming ~5×10−6 m/s  at 1 AU, scaled as 1/r²):

• 1.5 AU: 2.2×10−6 m/s²

• 2.0 AU: 1.25×10−6 m/s²

• 2.5 AU: 0.80×10−6 m/s²

Geometric factor (radial component, cos ⁡α)

• 1.5 AU: 3I/ATLAS ≈ 0.43 × ʻOumuamua - about 57% weaker

• 2.0 AU: 3I/ATLAS ≈ 0.73 × ʻOumuamua - about 27% weaker

• 2.5 AU: 3I/ATLAS ≈ 0.84 × ʻOumuamua -  about 16% weaker

Estimated possible anomaly for 3I/ATLAS

(based only on the angle difference, without assuming any physical cause):

• 3I/ATLAS 1.5 AU: ~0.95×10−6 m/s²

• 3I/ATLAS 2.0 AU: ~0.91×10−6 m/s²

• 3I/ATLAS 2.5 AU: ~0.67×10−6 m/s²

This will most likely be more accurate, (at least more specific) - or (off course) maybe the anomali is cheating, and won't repeat

PS! When an acceleration occurs on the way out of the solar system, there is reason to believe that the opposite (deceleration) occurs on the way into the solar system.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by Bjarne-7

On 10/1/2025 at 2:27 AM, Bjarne-7 said:

Correction: "3I/Atlas moved predominantly in a horizontally trajectory through the solar system, much like ‘Oumuamua did when the anomaly was first detected — and not vertical , as Borisov did.

What do you mean by vertical and horizontal? Do you mean normal and parallel, respectively, to the ecliptic?

7 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

I don't know if you've noticed that what we're discussing about 3i/Atlas is that we're actually seeing an anomaly that looks like the Omuamua anomaly. - And the answer is that there's nothing to show that this anomaly has been resolved.

Which you have not stated until now, and you have not provided any links to credible sources reporting it

And as I said, Atlas has a tail, so we know matter is being ejected — a non-gravitational acceleration is expected.

8 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

There is no need to show calculations that can essentially be downloaded as ready-made results from the internet and then are pure head-hunting.

If you want discussion, you have to provide the details, rather than expecting others to go dig for them. When you make a claim, you need to back it up.

Here’s a report of an acceleration no bigger than 3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 (if my math is correct, that’s about 10^-8 m/s^2)

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/CLV.pdf

So is there any evidence that the usual suspects (outgassing, radiation pressure, Yarkovsky effect) don’t account for it?

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

What do you mean by vertical and horizontal? Do you mean normal and parallel, respectively, to the ecliptic?

RA (Right Ascension) and DEC (Declination)

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which you have not stated until now, and you have not provided any links to credible sources reporting it

Starting point here- ~5×10−6 m/s  at 1 AU, scaled as 1/r², -and link (source) what about this: Non-gravitational acceleration in the trajectory of 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua), Marco Micheli et al., Nature 559, 223–226 (27 June 2018)

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

And as I said, Atlas has a tail, so we know matter is being ejected — a non-gravitational acceleration is expected.

Very little , for 3I/ATLAS the effect of outgassing appears to be extremely small, on the order of 10e-9m/s^2.... (i.e. less than 0.05% of ʻOumuamua’s anomaly.).

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you want discussion, you have to provide the details, rather than expecting others to go dig for them. When you make a claim, you need to back it up.

Here’s a report of an acceleration no bigger than 3 x 10^-10 au/d^2 (if my math is correct, that’s about 10^-8 m/s^2)

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/CLV.pdf

So is there any evidence that the usual suspects (outgassing, radiation pressure, Yarkovsky effect) don’t account for it?

Same answer as above

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Same answer as above

Your “answer as above” lacks a citation.

Why Oumuamua and not Borisov

The interstellar comet 2I/Borisov behaved very differently from 1I/ʻOumuamua.

Whereas ʻOumuamua showed no detectable outgassing, Borisov exhibited strong cometary activity throughout its passage: telescopes including Hubble, VLT, and ALMA observed a bright coma, a dust tail, and clear gas emissions (water, CO, CN). These outgassing processes produced non-gravitational accelerations in the range of 10e−7m/s² to 10−e6 m/s² , fully consistent with what is seen in ordinary comets.

If a subtle anomalous effect like that inferred for ʻOumuamua had been present in Borisov, its magnitude would have been on the order of 10−7 m/s² at 2–3 AU.

However, such a signal would have been indistinguishable from, and completely masked by, the much larger and variable accelerations generated by Borisov’s vigorous outgassing. In short, ʻOumuamua appeared anomalous precisely because it lacked measurable outgassing, while Borisov behaved as a textbook comet whose trajectory can be explained by conventional comet physics.

Source:

• Jewitt, D., Hui, M.-T., Kim, Y., Rajagopal, J., Kotulla, R., Ridgway, S., … & Weaver, H. A. (2020). The nucleus of interstellar comet 2I/Borisov. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 888(2), L23. arXiv:1912.05422

• Bodewits, D., Kelley, M. S. P., Li, J.-Y., Farnham, T. L., Weaver, H. A., & Guzik, P. (2020). The carbon monoxide–rich interstellar comet 2I/Borisov. Nature Astronomy, 4, 867–871. NASA/HST report (PDF)

• Guzik, P., Drahus, M., Rusek, K., Waniak, W., Cannizzaro, G., & Pastor-Marazuela, I. (2020). Initial characterization of interstellar comet 2I/Borisov. Nature Astronomy, 4, 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-019-0931-8

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Your “answer as above” lacks a citation.

Here are a few key links to research and preprint articles about 3I/ATLAS that discuss or constrain non-gravitational acceleration and outgassing:

(Cloete, Loeb & Vereš 2025) explicitly constrains 3I/ATLAS’s non-gravitational acceleration to the 10−9 m/s² level — essentially negligible compared to ʻOumuamua’s anomaly

Also check

• “Upper Limit on the Non-Gravitational Acceleration and Lower Limits on the Nucleus Mass and Diameter of 3I/ATLAS” — arXiv preprint setting an upper bound on non-gravitational acceleration. (arXiv:2509.21408)

• “3I/ATLAS: Direct Spacecraft Exploration of a …” — discusses the expected non-gravitational acceleration from outgassing and the detectability challenges. (arXiv:2508.15768)

• “Water Detection in the Interstellar Object 3I/ATLAS” — reports OH emission, which indicates water/outgassing potential. (arXiv:2508.04675)

Edited October 2Oct 2 by Bjarne-7
Here are a few key links to research and preprint articles about 3I/ATLAS that discuss or constrain non-gravitational acceleration and outgassing: “Upper Limit on the Non-Gravitational Acceleration and Lower Limits on the Nucleus Mass and Diameter of

43 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

(Cloete, Loeb & Vereš 2025)

Loeb?

21 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Nothing to worry about. No Aliens

yet you cite Loeb

52 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Here are a few key links to research and preprint articles about 3I/ATLAS that discuss or constrain non-gravitational acceleration and outgassing:

(Cloete, Loeb & Vereš 2025) explicitly constrains 3I/ATLAS’s non-gravitational acceleration to the 10−9 m/s² level — essentially negligible compared to ʻOumuamua’s anomaly

That’s the citation I gave earlier. The measured anomaly is, as you say, around 10^-9. Your prediction is much larger than that.

You seem to be asserting that outgassing or radiation effects don’t account for this measured value, and I’m asking for details.

47 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Loeb?

Yes, that one, but it’s a measurement and not speculation about any ET-related subject matter

43 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s the citation I gave earlier. The measured anomaly is, as you say, around 10^-9. Your prediction is much larger than that.

You seem to be asserting that outgassing or radiation effects don’t account for this measured value, and I’m asking for details.

The measurement is from this summer and therefore outdated. It will almost certainly be updated with stronger measurements and expectations. If there's a possibility that a similar anomaly (like the one observed in 'Oumuamua's trajectory) is hidden in the data, it will most likely be interpreted as outgassing—almost regardless of the actual cause. That conclusion is easy to reach, since there was a large willingness to interpret the 'Oumuamua anomaly as outgassing—even while fully aware that no such outgassing was actually observed."

(36) The path of interstellar comet 3I/ATLAS through the Solar System - YouTube

1 hour ago, Bjarne-7 said:

The measurement is from this summer and therefore outdated

Summer ended just a few weeks ago, as did the measurement window. Seems pretty fresh.

“We use astrometric data on 3I/ATLAS compiled by the Minor Planet Center from May 15 to September 23, 2025”

Doesn’t seem all that outdated, nor does that affect how much bigger your prediction is than the measured value.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Summer ended just a few weeks ago, as did the measurement window. Seems pretty fresh.

“We use astrometric data on 3I/ATLAS compiled by the Minor Planet Center from May 15 to September 23, 2025”

Doesn’t seem all that outdated, nor does that affect how much bigger your prediction is than the measured value.

3i/Atlas was at that time about 3 AU from the sun, it make a hell lots of difference, how to calculate all that, - and this time it is your turn to show the calculation, otherwise you don't know what you are claiming

31 minutes ago, Bjarne-7 said:

3i/Atlas was at that time about 3 AU from the sun, it make a hell lots of difference, how to calculate all that, - and this time it is your turn to show the calculation, otherwise you don't know what you are claiming

• 3I/ATLAS 2.5 AU: ~0.67×10−6 m/s²

That’s your number. At 5 AU, using a 1/r^2 effect, it is only a factor of 4 smaller.

1.7 x 10^-7 is >100x bigger than the observed value of 1 x 10-9m/s² (from your post)

7 hours ago, swansont said:

• 3I/ATLAS 2.5 AU: ~0.67×10−6 m/s²

That’s your number. At 5 AU, using a 1/r^2 effect, it is only a factor of 4 smaller.

1.7 x 10^-7 is >100x bigger than the observed value of 1 x 10-9m/s² (from your post)

It is absolutely correct that, hypothetically, the numbers you mention are consistent.

But first I need to clarify:

1. On August 1, when the outgassing effect you referred to was measured, 3I/ATLAS was about 3 AU from the Earth, or, if you prefer, about 4 AU from the Sun.

   So the "2.5 AU" figure you referred to above is still misleading.

2. ʻOumuamua’s non-gravitational acceleration was determined from precise astrometry collected between October and January 2017/2018, after the object was discovered by Pan-STARRS1 on October 19, 2017.

   The observations covered a range of about 1.4 to 2.0 AU from the Sun on its way out of the solar system (Micheli et al. 2018, Nature 559, 223–226).

   It was in this interval that residuals from a purely gravitational trajectory became clear, and where an outgassing-like 1/r² law could be fitted to the data.

3. After ~2 AU, ʻOumuamua quickly became too faint to be tracked by telescopes, and therefore there are no measurements of the anomaly beyond 2 AU.

4. Any values at 3–4 AU are thus not observations, but simply extrapolations of the model.

5. In the study of comets and interstellar objects, the so-called outgassing law (often expressed as an acceleration proportional 1/r² law has long been the standard model to describe non-gravitational forces in orbits. However, this law has been criticized in cases where its application lacks direct physical correspondence — particularly with ʻOumuamua, where an “outgassing-like” acceleration was observed, but no gas or dust was detected.

   Critics have suggested that in such cases the law may be a mathematical parametrization of an unknown anomalous effect rather than a physical gas mechanism (e.g., Seccull & Jewitt, 2018; Bialy & Loeb, 2018).

This all means you have no observations to support that ʻOumuamua’s anomaly must, in practice, continue to follow Micheli’s equation.
So the conclusion here: - is that you expect it to apply beyond 2 AU, and therefore you must demonstrate it.

That’s why you need to show us your calculations.

The Micheli et al. (2018) amplitude should not be regarded as a natural constant. In the case of ʻOumuamua it serves only as a parametrization of the observed non-gravitational acceleration, and it cannot be directly applied to other objects without accounting for differences in their perihelion distance. I pointed this out in an earlier post, and for that I was rewarded with two downvotes.

Clarification on the Reported Values for 3I/Atlas

There has been some confusion about whether a non-gravitational acceleration was measured for 3I/Atlas. In fact, no direct detection has been made — only an upper limit has been established from orbital fitting.

1. Upper limit from astrometry
   Cloete, Loeb & Vereš (2025) analyzed the orbital residuals and found no significant evidence for a non-gravitational acceleration. Instead, they placed an upper bound of

   <3×10−10 AU/d²,

   which converts to

   <6×10−8 m/s².

   This is not a direct measurement of acceleration — it is simply the maximum strength such an effect could have without being detectable in the available data.

2. Order-of-magnitude estimates in discussion
   Separately, values around

   ∼1×10−8 m/s²

   have been mentioned as plausible accelerations from comet-like outgassing at ~3 AU. These are heuristic estimates, not observational results, and they remain comfortably below the observational upper limit.

Predicted anomaly for 3I/Atlas (perihelion-scaled from ʻOumuamua)

This table shows the predicted non-gravitational anomaly for 3I/Atlas, scaled from ʻOumuamua’s Micheli et al. (2018) amplitude using perihelion distance correction. Values are given for heliocentric distances from 0.5 AU to 5.0 AU in 0.5 AU steps.

Distance r (AU)	NASA/Micheli Δa (m/s²) [3I/Atlas]	NASA/Micheli Δa (µm/s²)
0.5	6.529e-07	6.529e-01
1.0	1.632e-07	1.632e-01
1.5	7.254e-08	7.254e-02
2.0	4.081e-08	4.081e-02
2.5	2.612e-08	2.612e-02
3.0	1.814e-08	1.814e-02
3.5	1.332e-08	1.332e-02
4.0	1.020e-08	1.020e-02
4.5	8.061e-09	8.061e-03
5.0	6.529e-09	6.529e-03

4 hours ago, Bjarne-7 said:

It is absolutely correct that, hypothetically, the numbers you mention are consistent.

But first I need to clarify:

1. On August 1, when the outgassing effect you referred to was measured, 3I/ATLAS was about 3 AU from the Earth, or, if you prefer, about 4 AU from the Sun.

   So the "2.5 AU" figure you referred to above is still misleading.

2. ʻOumuamua’s non-gravitational acceleration was determined from precise astrometry collected between October and January 2017/2018, after the object was discovered by Pan-STARRS1 on October 19, 2017.

   The observations covered a range of about 1.4 to 2.0 AU from the Sun on its way out of the solar system (Micheli et al. 2018, Nature 559, 223–226).

   It was in this interval that residuals from a purely gravitational trajectory became clear, and where an outgassing-like 1/r² law could be fitted to the data.

3. After ~2 AU, ʻOumuamua quickly became too faint to be tracked by telescopes, and therefore there are no measurements of the anomaly beyond 2 AU.

4. Any values at 3–4 AU are thus not observations, but simply extrapolations of the model.

5. In the study of comets and interstellar objects, the so-called outgassing law (often expressed as an acceleration proportional 1/r² law has long been the standard model to describe non-gravitational forces in orbits. However, this law has been criticized in cases where its application lacks direct physical correspondence — particularly with ʻOumuamua, where an “outgassing-like” acceleration was observed, but no gas or dust was detected.

   Critics have suggested that in such cases the law may be a mathematical parametrization of an unknown anomalous effect rather than a physical gas mechanism (e.g., Seccull & Jewitt, 2018; Bialy & Loeb, 2018).

This all means you have no observations to support that ʻOumuamua’s anomaly must, in practice, continue to follow Micheli’s equation.
So the conclusion here: - is that you expect it to apply beyond 2 AU, and therefore you must demonstrate it.

That’s why you need to show us your calculations.

I'm getting confused. Is this thread about Oumuamua now? I thought it was about 3I/ATLAS. Why the digression?

20 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I'm getting confused. Is this thread about Oumuamua now? I thought it was about 3I/ATLAS. Why the digression?

Fundamentally, this is about a (relatively) large monster anomaly discovered in the ʻOumuamua object that visited our solar system in 2017. This comet behaved exactly as if it were undergoing outgassing—despite no evidence supporting that.

Since then, Borisov passed by in 2018. It was a comet with strong outgassing, decelerating and accelerating as expected.

Now, 3I/Atlas is making its way through the solar system. So far, it’s behaving quite normally. Nevertheless, it has become part of a “conspiracy” in which many—some even highly ranked experts—are speculating about alien involvement due to the lack of a natural explanation. This speaks volumes about how powerless many feel when faced with an anomaly that the current paradigm cannot explain.

ʻOumuamua has also led some skeptics to claim that outgassing itself might be the same anomaly—just in disguise.

My calculations show that there is at least enough room for the same anomaly to be hiding in both Borisov and 3I/Atlas.

Of course, it’s crucial to quickly figure out what’s really going on. Right now, we’re seeing a growing public excitement, with some believing we’re under alien invasion. Let’s hope it doesn’t spiral into something as damaging as the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

So yes, at its core, this is about ʻOumuamua being the object that most clearly revealed something is seriously wrong.

My mission here is simply to show that the ʻOumuamua anomaly-monster could potentially be hiding in all three interstellar objects that have visited the solar system—meaning Borisov and 3I/Atlas as well.

This is the first necessary step to take to get the fox out of the rabbit hole.

But beware: arrogant, dogmatic scientists are ready with their downvoting machine guns, eager to shoot you down and drag you before the crackpot tribunal the moment you say the wrong word. So be careful what you dare to think out loud.

1 minute ago, Bjarne-7 said:

Fundamentally, this is about a (relatively) large monster anomaly discovered in the ʻOumuamua object that visited our solar system in 2017. This comet behaved exactly as if it were undergoing outgassing—despite no evidence supporting that.

Since then, Borisov passed by in 2018. It was a comet with strong outgassing, decelerating and accelerating as expected.

Now, 3I/Atlas is making its way through the solar system. So far, it’s behaving quite normally. Nevertheless, it has become part of a “conspiracy” in which many—some even highly ranked experts—are speculating about alien involvement due to the lack of a natural explanation. This speaks volumes about how powerless many feel when faced with an anomaly that the current paradigm cannot explain.

ʻOumuamua has also led some skeptics to claim that outgassing itself might be the same anomaly—just in disguise.

My calculations show that there is at least enough room for the same anomaly to be hiding in both Borisov and 3I/Atlas.

Of course, it’s crucial to quickly figure out what’s really going on. Right now, we’re seeing a growing public excitement, with some believing we’re under alien invasion. Let’s hope it doesn’t spiral into something as damaging as the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

So yes, at its core, this is about ʻOumuamua being the object that most clearly revealed something is seriously wrong.

My mission here is simply to show that the ʻOumuamua anomaly-monster could potentially be hiding in all three interstellar objects that have visited the solar system—meaning Borisov and 3I/Atlas as well.

This is the first necessary step to take to get the fox out of the rabbit hole.

But beware: arrogant, dogmatic scientists are ready with their downvoting machine guns, eager to shoot you down and drag you before the crackpot tribunal the moment you say the wrong word. So be careful what you dare to think out loud.

But Borisov didn't show anomalous behaviour and so far there doesn't seem to be, from what you have told us, much evidence of 3I/ATLAS doing so either. I had a quick look at the Wiki article on it and there's nothing there about anything anomalous. It's a comet, unusually big, and outgassing a rather interesting - but far from unexpected - cocktail of substances including cyanide and nickel. And it's on a high eccentricity hyperbolic path through the solar system. That's it, isn't it?

So why is it crucial to figure out "quickly" what's going on? Nothing's going on, surely?

There is no "public excitement". You have made that up. There is practically nothing in the media about 3I/ATLAS. Barely anybody has even heard of it, much less started worrying about aliens. (Apart from Avi "Frontal" Loeb, apparently. But he's awa wi the faeries, so we can discount him.)

Maybe it's just me, but you give me the impression of tap-dancing around some belief that you are reluctant to own up to explicitly. My impression is reinforced by this paranoid stuff about "arrogant, dogmatic scientists" with "downvoting machine guns", which is classic crankspeak. Not having a sound scientific basis for their notions, cranks often will attack science when it exposes the shortcomings in their thinking, trying on the Galileo Gambit as a defence. I do hope this is not where you are going.

Do you, then, have a hypothesis to propose, for some unusual behaviour you either think you see already, or expect to become manifest, during 3I/ATLAS's passage through the solar system? If so what is it, please? If not, what is this thread about?

Edited October 3Oct 3 by exchemist